We’re currently experiencing serious technical problems on the site, and as a result are unable to update the news – even though our market data is running as per normal. We sincerely apologise for any inconvenience caused and hope to be up and running again this evening. Thank you for your patience in this regard.
– David McKay (editor) & team

Google’s privacy changes are both less and more than meets
the eye. The less: Google has been collecting all the data in question already,
most for a long time.

The more: It’s one thing to collect data, quite another to
change how you use it without giving your customers any flexibility. Google
should be lauded for über transparency, but it’s hard to like ”Our Way or the
Highway.”

The concept is pretty simple. You’ve allowed Google to cull
a lot of personal facts and behavioral details, but each of the services Google
provides has had its own privacy rules, and for the most part none of that information
about you in each was indexed against the data in others.

Your Gmail details are over here, and your calendar deets
are over there, and never the twain met. It makes lots of sense to tear down
the walls between all the different Google services you may use, so that your
likes and habits and movements and appointments are all aware of each other.

The question (and this is the eternal question about digital
privacy): Is it as good for you as it is for Google to have all that
information mashed up?

I’ve argued that the interests of Facebook, its members and
the marketers who want to exploit that audience aren’t necessarily aligned.
Facebook also hoards scads of information about you, and for about as long as
Google has.

The social network’s privacy rules are, shall we say,
somewhat more complex than Google’s. And nobody seems to care much, if you can
infer that from Facebook’s steady increase in membership. (Now at 800 million,
roughly 11% of the planet.)

Google has portrayed its changes as being part of an
ever-improving symbiosis. One of the examples they highlight is actually a
reasonable one: You have an appointment but you’re accidentally headed in the
opposite direction.

In doing so you run the risk of being late. Using all the
things Google and your smartphone know - your calendar, your location, the time
of day, the traffic, weather conditions - a voice channels HAL 9000 and says:
“Just what do you think you’re doing, Dave?”

Google’s changes, then, aren’t about the sleazy side of the
ad business where non-anonymous facts about you are sold to the highest bidder.

They’re about using computing power no individual can
possibly have to synthesise facts we can’t readily process that then make our
lives simpler, more efficient and more satisfying.

Yes, this means allowing a public company to take custody of
our most precious personal property: the building blocks of identity,
personality and tendencies we may not even realise we have.

It’s not as if we haven’t been steadily prepared to take our
relationship with the internet to a new level. Google got the same level of
privacy-concern pushback when it launched Gmail nearly eight years ago,
introducing the unheard of notion that your mail would be sniffed to serve up
targeted ads.

Gmail, of course, is now a rousing success, and it ushered
in the rest of Google’s eco-system - Google Docs, Google Calendar and
ultimately Google+.

It also helped create Facebook, only slightly more than a twinkle
in Zuckerberg’s eye when Gmail launched. Users of the world’s largest social
network seem to have completely recalculated the TMI versus ads equation.

Our increased comfort level with this trade-off - my life is
“improved” in direct proportion to my transparency and therefore marketability - is the foundation of a cultural revolution of which changes in online mores
are only a part.

Both Google and Facebook - which just forced Timeline on
members - know that the future is about circulating as much currency from
everyone’s social graph as possible.

After all, Google is only now surfacing Google+ in its
search results. And they both know that if they treat this privilege with the
proper respect, we will just let them do it.

And though there will be missteps and adjustments and things
we didn’t foresee, the privacy debate will recede and even become boring.

Because eventually we’ll grow more comfortable with what I
suspect the debate is really about. If you’ll allow me one wild, psychobabble
musing: Could it be that we’re just coming to grips with the possibility that
Google and Facebook know us better than we know ourselves? - Reuters

*(Abell is the New York Bureau Chief for Wired and a former
Reuters staffer.)

Share this page

24.com publishes all comments posted on articles provided that they adhere to our Comments Policy. Should you wish to report a comment for editorial review, please do so by clicking the 'Report Comment' button to the right of each comment.